Digital Commons Network^™

Dickerson V. United States: The Case That Disappointed Miranda's Critics - And Then Its Supporters, Yale Kamisar

Book Chapters

It is difficult, if not impossible, to discuss Dickerson1 intelligently without discussing Miranda whose constitutional status Dickerson reaffirmed (or, one might say, resuscitated). It is also difficult, if not impossible, to discuss the Dickerson case intelligently without discussing cases the Court has handed down in the five years since Dickerson was decided. The hard truth is that in those five years the reaffirmation of Miranda's constitutional status has become less and less meaningful. In this chapter I focus on the Court's characterization of statements elicited in violation of the Miranda warnings as not actually "coerced" or "compelled" but obtained merely …

The Court Of Disbelief: The Constitution's Article Vi Religious Test Prohibition And The Judiciary's Religious Motive Analysis, Francis J. Beckwith

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

In several federal cases concerning whether particular statutes or policies violate the First Amendment's prohibition of religious establishment, both the United States Supreme Court and other federal courts have rejected the constitutionality of these laws and policies on the grounds that they have an exclusively religious purpose. Part of the courts' analyses in some of these cases rely on the apparent religious motives of the statute's or policy's sponsors and/or citizen-supporters as the basis by which the courts infer that the law or policy in question has a religious purpose.

I argue in this paper that this sort of analysis …

Meditations On Carl Schmitt, Mark Tushnet

Georgia Law Review

A spectre is haunting Professor Levinson - the spectre of Carl Schmitt. The German--or should it be Nazi? - constitutional theorist flits in and out of Professor Levinson's discussion. Professor Levinson has done yeoman work in bringing Schmitt's perspective to the attention of constitutional theorists. My comments offer my own reaction to what I take to be Schmitt's points, and in doing so may confirm Professor Levinson's assessment of Schmitt's importance today. I start with the sentence Professor Levinson quotes: "Sovereign is he who decides on the exception. Professor Levinson focuses on the first part of the sentence, because, in …

Selling The Name On The Schoolhouse Gate : The First Amendment And The Sale Of Public School Naming Rights, Joseph Blocher

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Silence Should Be Golden: A Case Against The Use Of A Defendant's Post-Arrest, Pre-Miranda Silence As Evidence Of Guilt, Marty Skrapka

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Small V. United States: Defining "Any" As A Subset Of "Any", Lee G. Lester

University of Richmond Law Review

"It shall be unlawful for any person.., who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year ... to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition ...." Although this statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), was enacted to keep firearms out of the hands of persons not entitled to possess them because of their criminal backgrounds, the scope of this statute has been controversial. Specifically, the federal circuits have disagreed as to whether the phrase "any court" applies to foreign courts …

Evolving Objective Standards: A Developmental Approach To Constitutional Review Of Morals Legislation, Christian J. Grostic

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that the Supreme Court's recent jurisprudence regarding morals legislation mirrors the findings of empirical research on moral and psychological development. Specifically, the Supreme Court upholds morals legislation only if it is justified by stage five reasoning. Part I examines significant Supreme Court cases related to morals legislation over the last 50 years and argues that the Supreme Court has consistently upheld morals legislation that is justified by stage five reasoning, while consistently striking down as unconstitutional morals legislation that is not. Part II argues that a developmental approach to constitutional review of morals legislation, while consistent with …

The Juridical Structure Of Habitual Offender Laws And The Jurisprudence Of Authoritarian Social Control, Ahmed A. White

Publications

No abstract provided.

Scalia's Infidelity: A Critique Of "Faint-Hearted" Originalism, Randy E. Barnett

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In this essay, based on the 2006 William Howard Taft lecture, the author critically evaluates Justice Antonin Scalia's famous and influential 1988 Taft Lecture, entitled Originalism: The Lesser Evil. In his lecture, Justice Scalia began the now-widely-accepted shift from basing constitutional interpretation on the intent of the framers to relying instead on the original public meaning of the text. At the same time, the essay explains how Justice Scalia allows himself three ways to escape originalist results that he finds to be objectionable: (1) when the text is insufficiently rule-like, (2) when precedent has deviated from original meaning and …

Indecent Standards: The Case Of U.S. Versus Weldon Angelos, Eva Nilsen

Faculty Scholarship

In today's highly punitive culture, perhaps Weldon Angelos' fifty-five-year sentence does not seem unusual. He's a 25-year-old man who was convicted in December 2003 of selling marijuana, possessing firearms while drug dealing, and money laundering. ³ The facts proven at trial are that on three occasions in June and July, 2002, Angelos sold eight one-ounce bags of marijuana for $350 each to a government informant. ⁴ The purchaser testified that a firearm was visible during two of these drug sales.⁵ Police seized another gun from Angelos' home five months later pursuant to a warrant.⁶ At no time was …

Eminent Domain Legislation Post-Kelo: A State Of The States, Patricia E. Salkin

Scholarly Works

In Kelo v. City of New London, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the use of eminent domain for economic development is a permissible“public use” under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The decision proved controversial, as many feared that it would benefit large corporations at the expense of individual homeowners and local communities. Shortly thereafter, numerous states introduced legislation limiting the use of eminent domain.This article surveys those state initiatives that have been signed into law following the Court’s decision in Kelo.

Cleaning Up The Eighth Amendment Mess, Tom Stacy

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This article criticizes the Court's interpretation of the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause and offers its own understanding. The Court's jurisprudence is plagued by deep inconsistencies concerning the Amendment's text, the Court's own role, and a constitutional requirement of proportionate punishment. In search of ways to redress these fundamental shortcomings, the article explores three alternative interpretations of the Clause: (1) a textualist approach; (2) Justice Scalia's understanding that the Clause forbids only punishments unacceptable for all offenses; and (3) a majoritarian approach that would consistently define cruel and unusual punishment in terms of legislative judgments and penal custom. …

Constitutional Law—First Amendment And Freedom Of Thought—Banishing Sex Offenders: Seventh Circuit Upholds Sex Offender's Ban From Public Parks After Thinking Obscene Thoughts About Children. Doe V. City Of Lafayette, 377 F.3d 757 (7th Cir. 2004)., Elizabeth Cloud

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Aid And Comfort: Rasul V. Bush And The Separation Of Powers Doctrine In Wartime, Ryan Mckaig

Campbell Law Review

By failing to recognize the challenges facing political and military leaders in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, in reversing fifty-four years of precedent relied upon by the executive branch, and in failing to consider the political question doctrine, the Supreme Court in Rasul charted a dangerous constitutional course that could lead to greater judicial involvement in war-making powers and greater levels of conflict among the three branches. These trends will ultimately threaten the nation's ability to fight and win future wars. The decision is ill-advised, ill-timed, and invites unintended consequences.

The View Outside: What Kind Of Expression For Adolescents Outside The United States?, Edward J. Eberle

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Section 1: Moot Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

The Constitutional Right Not To Cooperate? Local Sovereignty And The Federal Immigration Power, Huyen Pham

ExpressO

May the federal government require local governments to cooperate with the enforcement of immigration law or other federal scheme? Or may local governments constitutionally refuse to provide that cooperation?

I use immigration law enforcement as a case study to argue that the current legal framework, which allows the federal government to mandate local cooperation, ignores the significant federalism harms that federal cooperation laws impose. And these federalism harms are not simply limited to the immigration field. In other areas where federal and local governments disagree (e.g., medical marijuana, stem cell research, and physician-assisted suicide), there is similar potential for conflict …

Kelo V. New London: An Opportunity Lost To Rehabilitate The Takings Clause, Christian M. Orme

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Substantive Due Process As A Source Of Constitutional Protection For Nonpolitical Speech, Gregory P. Magarian

Working Paper Series

Present First Amendment doctrine presumptively protects anything within the descriptive category “expression” from government regulation, subject to balancing against countervailing government interests. As government actions during the present war on terrorism have made all too clear, that doctrine allows intolerable suppression of political debate and dissent – the expressive activity most integral to our constitutional design. At the same time, present doctrine fails to give a clear account of why the Constitution protects expressive autonomy and when that protection properly should yield to government interests, leading to an inconsistent and unsatisfying free speech regime. In this article, Professor Magarian advocates …

Bolling, Equal Protection, Due Process, And Lochnerphobia, David E. Bernstein

George Mason University School of Law Working Papers Series

In Brown v. Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court invalidated state and local school segregation laws as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. That same day, in Bolling v. Sharpe, the Court held unconstitutional de jure segregation in Washington, D.C.'s public schools under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Fifty years after it was decided, Bolling remains one of the Warren Court's most controversial decisions.

The controversy reflects the widespread belief that the outcome in Bolling reflected the Justices' political preferences and was not a sound interpretation of the Due Process Clause. The Bolling Court …

Dickerson V. United States: The Case That Disappointed Miranda's Critics--And Then Its Supporters, Yale Kamisar

University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series

It is difficult, if not impossible, to discuss Dickerson v. United States intelligently without discussing Miranda, whose constitutional status Dickerson reaffirmed (or, one might say, resuscitated). It is also difficult, if not impossible, to discuss the Dickerson case intelligently without discussing cases the Court has handed down in the five years since Dickerson was decided. The hard truth is that in those five years the reaffirmation of Miranda’s constitutional status has become less and less meaningful.

In this paper I want to focus on the Court’s characterization of statements elicited in violation of the Miranda warnings as not actually “coerced” …

Review Essay: A Prescription For Perilous Times, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

It seldom happens that a scholar makes a lasting contribution both to legal history and to the most pressing constitutional issues of the day in the same work. It is more rare that an academic does so in a book accessible to a general audience. Perilous Times accomplishes that feat. For these reasons, and for another as well, the book should be regarded as a triumph.

Abu Ghraib, Diane Marie Amann

Scholarly Works

This article posits a theoretical framework within which to analyze various aspects of post-September 11 detention policy - including the widespread prisoner abuse that has been documented in the leaks and official releases that began with publication of photos made at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. Examined are the actions of civilian executive officials charged with setting policy, of judicial officers who evaluated it, and military personnel who implemented it. Abuse has been attributed to failures of training or planning. The article concentrates on a different failure, the failure of law to keep lawlessness in check. On September 11, law's map …

Interstate Commerce And Interstate Endangered Species: The Controversy And The Need For Compromise, Paul Ziel

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

No abstract provided.

Modernizing The Law Of Open-Air Speech: The Hughes Court And The Birth Of Content-Neutral Balancing, William E. Lee

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law—The Fourth Amendment Challenge To Dna Sampling Of Arrestees Pursuant To The Justice For All Act Of 2004: A Proposed Modification To The Traditional Fourth Amendment Test Of Reasonableness, Kimberly A. Polanco

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Jacobson V Massachusetts: It's Not Your Great-Great-Grandfather's Public Health Law, Wendy K. Mariner, George J. Annas, Leonard H. Glantz

Faculty Scholarship

Jacobson v Massachusetts, a 1905 US Supreme Court decision, raised questions about the power of state government to protect the public’s health and the Constitution’s protection of personal liberty. We examined conceptions about state power and personal liberty in Jacobson and later cases that expanded, superseded, or even ignored those ideas.

Public health and constitutional law have evolved to better protect both health and human rights. States’ sovereign power to make laws of all kinds has not changed in the past century. What has changed is the Court’s recognition of the importance of individual liberty and how it limits …

Taking Miranda's Pulse, William T. Pizzi, Morris B. Hoffman

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Supreme Court decided five Miranda1 cases in 2003-2004, making this one of the most active fifteen-month periods for the law of self-incrimination since the controversial case was decided in 1966. In this Article, we consider three of those five cases-Chavez v. Martinez, Missouri v. Seibert and United States v. Patane-along with the blockbuster decision four years ago in Dickerson v. United States. in an attempt to decipher what, if anything, this remarkable level of activity teaches us about the direction of the Court's self-incrimination jurisprudence. In the end, while these cases, like those before them, may not entirely clarify …

Cleaning Up The Eighth Amendment Mess, Tom Stacy

ExpressO

This article criticizes the Court’s interpretation of the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause and proposes its own understanding. The Court’s jurisprudence is plagued by deep inconsistencies concerning the text, the Court’s own role, and a constitutional requirement of proportionate punishment.

In search of ways to redress these fundamental shortcomings, the article explores three alternative interpretations: 1) A textualist approach; 2) Justice Scalia’s understanding that the Clause forbids only punishments unacceptable for all offenses; and 3) a majoritarian approach that would consistently define cruel and unusual punishment in terms of legislative judgments and penal custom. As evidenced by the …

The Opacity Of Transparency, Mark Fenster

ExpressO

The normative concept of transparency, along with the open government laws that purport to create a transparent public system of governance promise the world—a democratic and accountable state above all, and a peaceful, prosperous, and efficient one as well. But transparency, in its role as the theoretical justification for a set of legal commands, frustrates all parties affected by its ambiguities and abstractions. The public’s engagement with transparency in practice yields denials of reasonable requests for essential government information, as well as government meetings that occur behind closed doors. Meanwhile, state officials bemoan the significantly impaired decision-making processes that result …